DOJ-OGR-00005832.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397 Filed 10/29/21 Page 49 of 84

previous plans with Ferro to import narcotics . . . was evidence of ‘other crimes’ . . . [I]t
corroborated the charge that Ferro and Romero-Padilla were partners during the charged
conspiracy and established that Romero-Padilla’s participation in the charged conspiracy was at
least in part motivated by his desire to acquire [certain] funds . . .”).11

Minor Victim-3’s testimony is also necessary to complete the story of the offense conduct
in light of expected defenses at trial. To the extent that the defense argues, for instance, that the
defendant played no role in obtaining girls to massage Epstein or was unaware that Epstein’s

_____________________

11 The cases the defendant cites (Def. Mot. 4 at 8-9) conclude that the admission of evidence about
distinct criminal incidents are not direct evidence of the conspiracy. See United States v.
Cummings, 60 F. Supp. 3d 434, 438 (S.D.N.Y. 2014), vacated on other grounds, 858 F.3d 763 (2d
Cir. 2017) (evidence of prior narcotics arrest and firearms conviction in narcotics and firearms
case “could be . . . connected to the charged conspiracy, but the Government has not provided
enough detail”); Townsend, 2007 WL 1288597, at *2 (stating that the Government did not show
that uncharged firearm and drug transactions involving the same confidential informant outside
the time period of the charged conspiracy, described “rather generically” as a sale of firearms and
“narcotics transactions,” are “part and parcel of” the charged conduct or sufficiently similar to
them); United States v. Mahaffy, 477 F. Supp. 2d 560, 566 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) (stating that, although
the facts between two fraud schemes were “quite similar,” the other acts were “a separate, discrete
offense that may be conceptually segregated from the charged offenses without impairing the
jury’s ability to understand the facts underlying the schemes alleged in the indictment”), vacated
in part on other grounds 285 F. App’x 797 (2d Cir. 2008); United States v. Nektalov, 325 F. Supp.
2d 367, 370 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (“[T]he transactions took place as early as three years prior to the
charged conspiracy and appear to involve a series of distinct cash for gold transactions . . . .”).
That is not the case here, where the abuse of Minor Victim-3 occurred during the charged
conspiracy period, overlaps temporally with the testimony of other Minor Victims, whose
admissibility the defendant does not contest, and is direct proof of the operation of the conspiracy.
But in any event, in each case, the Court admitted at least some evidence under Rule 404(b). See
Cummings, 60 F. Supp. 3d at 438 (evidence admissible under Rule 404(b)); Townsend, 2007 WL
1288597, at *5-6 (some evidence admissible under Rule 404(b), some evidence “far too vague”
for the Court to resolve, evidence of later marijuana possession irrelevant); Mahaffy, 477 F. Supp.
2d at 566 (evidence admissible under Rule 404(b)); Nektalov, 325 F. Supp. 2d at 372 (evidence
admissible under Rule 404(b)).

48

DOJ-OGR-00005832